New industrial platforms and radical technology

Int. J. Manufacturing Technology and Management, Vol. X, No. Y, xxxx

New industrial platforms and radical technology foresight: the case of 3D printing in Finland and Europe Jari Kaivo-oja Turku School of Economics, Rehtorinpellonkatu 3, 20500 Turku, Finland Email: [email protected]

Toni Ahlqvist Geography Research Unit, P.O.BOX 3000, FI-90014 University of Oulu, Finland Email: [email protected]

Osmo Kuusi Aalto University, What Futures Inc., Untamontie 3 C 19 00650 Helsinki, Finland Email: [email protected]

Risto Linturi Sovelto Plc, Ratapihantie 11, 00520 Helsinki, Finland Email: [email protected]

Steffen Roth* La Rochelle Business School, 102 Rue de Coureilles, 17000 La Rochelle, France Email: [email protected] *Corresponding author Abstract: This article presents futures oriented analyses of 3D printing, which are based on technology foresight study performed in Finland in 2013. The methodological framework of the Finnish technology foresight study is shortly introduced and explained in this article. The analysis reflects current discussion about 3D printing technology options in Finland, as is reflected in report of Linturi et al. (2013, 2014). The analyses of 3D printing provided in this article are also linked to broader international and European context. TechCast study (Halal, 2013) and FutMan scenarios of JRC (Geyer et al., 2003a, 2003b) are elaborated. The analyses reveal several emerging aspects and bottlenecks of 3D printing and new industrial revolution. The emerging aspects are related to the Copyright © 20XX Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

1

2

J. Kaivo-oja et al. rise of new technological possibilities and new production processes. The bottlenecks include issues such as lacking capacities and competencies of industrial actors in adopting new technological solutions, uncertainties in the efficiency and performance of 3D printing solutions, problematic of wider societal transition, and potential risks potentially generated by 3D printing systems and technologies. Keywords: 3D printing; manufacturing; industrial scenarios; technology foresight; radical technological solutions; innovation policy; innovation management. Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Kaivo-oja, J., Ahlqvist, T., Kuusi, O., Linturi, R. and Roth, S. (xxxx) ‘New industrial platforms and radical technology foresight: the case of 3D printing in Finland and Europe’, Int. J. Manufacturing Technology and Management, Vol. X, No. Y, pp.000–000. Biographical notes: Jari Kaivo-oja is one of the leading foresight experts in the Nordic countries. He has worked in numerous 6th and the 7th Framework programs projects. He is the Research Director at the Finland Futures Research Centre of the Turku School of Economics, and Adjunct Professor at the Universities of Helsinki and of Lapland. He has worked for the European Commission, for the European Foundation, for the Nordic Innovation Center, TEKES, EUROSTAT, RAND Europe, and for the European Parliament. Currently, he is working with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) in the field of global energy and climate policy. Toni Ahlqvist is a Professor of Geography (Regional Change, Development and Policy) at the University of Oulu, Finland. He has ca. 18 years of research experience in the fields of geography, foresight and innovation studies. His present research focuses on state induced socio-spatial transformations and on the political economy of innovation systems. He is an Adjunct Professor of Economic Geography at the University of Turku, Finland. Osmo Kuusi is expert in futures studies, innovation studies, foresight and technology assessment. Especially his doctoral thesis ‘Expertise in the future use of generic technologies’ (1999) opened new paths for technology assessment and the Delphi method. He is an Adjunct Professor in the futures and innovation studies in the Aalto University and the Scientific Adviser of the Futures Research Centre of the Turku School of Economics, University of Turku. During 2010–2012, he was the fellow of the Sussex University in the Great Britain. In 1999–2011, he worked as the Permanent Scientific Adviser in the technology assessment and foresight in the Committee for the Future of the Parliament of Finland. In 2012, he started the firm What Futures Ltd. Risto Linturi is currently Chairman of Sovelto, a private training company. He has taught extensively innovation and specialises in radical innovation. His futuristic experiments have been widely reported in major global newspapers, magazines and TV-networks. In 2007, Director General of UNESCO invited him to participate High Level Group of Visionaries on ‘The Future of Knowledge Acquisition and Sharing’. He has worked in management positions since 1981 and as a board member or chairman in numerous high tech companies. As an entrepreneur he has had several successful exits. He has co-authored several books. Steffen Roth is an Associate Professor at La Rochelle Business School, Affiliate Professor at the Yerevan State University Department of Sociology, and a Visiting Professor at the International University of Rabat School of

New industrial platforms and radical technology foresight

3

Business. He has a PhD in Management from the Chemnitz University of Technology, and holds another PhD in Organizational Sociology at the University of Geneva. He was an Assistant Professor of Management and Organization at the Rennes School of Business, and Visiting Professor at the University of Cagliari, the Copenhagen Business School, and the Yerevan State University. His research fields include organisation theory, functional differentiation, total markets, next societies, ideation and crowdsourcing, and culturomics.

1

Introduction

The purpose of this article is to capture challenges that will or could arise if 3D printing technologies are implemented in the specific national context of Finland. These new developments are also conceptualised in the European industrial policy context. In doing so, we link technology foresight analysis and innovation research, not least because the applications of 3D printing are closely linked to the concepts of mass customisation and further flexible manufacturing systems, and 3D printing provides new promising possibilities for the production of customised products at low costs. The scope of products, which can be produced by 3D printing in mini factories by mini machines, is almost unlimited (Alpern, 2010; Koskinen, 2014). 3D printing is linked to many new developments of ubiquitous technology r/evolution. It is demanding question how new 3D printing solutions find their markets, users, consumers, and prosumers in complex innovation ecosystems of service economy (Peng and Yu, 2007; Rayna and Striukova, 2015; Rayna et al., 2015). We need to develop new service architectures and service designs for 3D printing products (Baxter et al., 2009). Thus, digital evolution includes 1

elements of process intelligence (inside organisation)

2

limited business intelligence (inside organisations)

3

integrated business intelligence (inside organisations)

4

ubiquitous intelligence (beyond organisational limits).

We can refer to these processes and say that digital evolution has enabled these kinds of information management processes (Westerlund and Kaivo-oja, 2012, 2015). Probably information management processes are having impacts of 3D printing solutions too. There are three key world-scale drivers for the development of 3D printing: markets, networks and crowds (Easley and Kleinberg, 2012). These drivers will, largely, determine what will happen in the field of 3D printing. It is important to understand that the 3D printing revolution is not only understood as industrial revolution, but also as a revolution of the service economy (Rayna and Striukova, 2014). The social consequences of mini-factory industrialisation are likely to have considerable spillover effects through the networks of value creation. This kind of network society approach may be more relevant approach to analyse future developments before 2030 than current statistical categories of post-industrial society. This critical aspect was taken into consideration in the methodology formulation of technology foresight study.

4

J. Kaivo-oja et al.

Technology development is not straightforwardly linked with economic development. Technological breakthroughs can open very wide range of value-added opportunities, but also challenges and threats. The internet, for example, increased its importance by enabling and improving many human activities. Therefore, new technological solutions also re-organise society in a new way. Many social consequences of the novel technologies are having dramatic impacts. Many futurists and sociologists (Toffler, 1990; Toffler et al., 1981; Rifkin, 2000, 2013; Rifkin and Kruger, 1996; Rifkin et al., 1998; Castells, 1996, 2004; Bronowski, 1977, 1972; Mann, 2013) have demonstrated the social-cultural effects of various inventions and innovations. No isolated methodological approach is therefore sufficient in this kind of technological foresight study. So far, typical 3D printing items are, among others, prototypes, mock-ups, replacement parts, medical prostheses, elements of housing, buildings, and bridge manufacturing (see, e.g., Ferreira et al., 2004; Moshfegh and Ottosson, 2004). However, new applications arise almost every month, which is a high pace that appears even higher if we recall that 3D printing is counted among the disruptive technologies and compared to digital books and music downloads in this regard. 3D printing will significantly reduce the competitive advantages of mass production in low-wage countries via reduced need for human resources. Probably comparative advantages of nations and industries will change in the long-run. Programmable smartness and sustainability of systems depends on the applications of 3D printing (Berman, 2012), which allows for a new wave of evaluate innovations and the corresponding business models. In this article, we firstly present the four level framework for radical technology foresight, formed in the report of Linturi et al. (2013, 2014), to contextualise the imminent changes in the field of 3D printing. This framework analyses the radical emerging technologies in the context 20 future value-creating networks, which will be introduced in the following section of the article. Subsequent to this, we present the results of TechCast technology foresight (Halal, 2013) to understand the nature of the new industrial revolution. We are also linking technology foresight results to the scenario analysis of manufacturing in Europe. All these analyses help us to anticipate potential bottlenecks of 3D printing and local mini factory production.

2

The Finnish radical technology foresight study

As a first empirical case, the article discusses a foresight study of 100 emerging technological solutions, which was realised in Finland in 2013 (Linturi et al., 2013, 2014). The study focused on radical technologies that could have wide-ranging changes in society. The temporal horizon of the study was the year 2030. Here, we briefly present the general framework of the study and then focus on the futures aspects of 3D printing. To open up the general context, the radical technology foresight study was based on a visionary assessment procedure realised through a multicriteria tool. The expertise for the assessment was gathered through expert panel-based process that was realised in 2013. There were 48 experts in the panel, who commented the findings on the Facebook. Most panellists made several comments on the preliminary ideas drafted by the writers. The results were also crowd-sourced more openly in different internet-based fora. This process resulted in over 200 hundred comments ad insights (Linturi et al., 2013, 2014). The process resulted in a list of hundred technological solutions that were assessed through a multi-criteria tool created in the process. The top technologies – that were


5

assessed to have the most pervasive and wide-ranging impacts in the society – were the following: •

open data and big data (see also Kaivo-oja et al., 2015)

•

freely organising distance work and web-based organisations, including new forms of labour outsourcing to crowds (see also Roth, 2009, 2010; Roth et al., 2013)

•

instruments of enhanced reality

•

gamification of co-operation and society (see also Roth, 2015; Roth et al., 2015)

•

extremely dense quantum processors

•

reorganisation of learning

•

robot cars

•

easy and cheap biochips and biosensors

•

3D printing of physical objects.

The selection criteria for the list of hundred technologies were the following: The first criterion was that the solution should be feasible and it should have proof of concept at least in a peer-reviewed scientific publication. The criterion was that the solution should be available, in one form or the other, in 2020, and it should have capacity to induce wide-ranging impacts until 2030. The third criterion was that each of the technologies should bring concrete instrumental value to the present practices either by cutting costs, easing the everyday life or enhancing well-being of people. The impacts of the technologies were assessed against four interacting levels (Figure 1): At level one, social value creation networks are addressed. In the report, the social value creation network was defined as a configuration that covers the most important transformation dynamic in the present fabric of a society. The report defines social value creation networks as follows: they are sorts of bundles of societal needs that can integrate several fields of private and collective, and public and market oriented actions that could either induce or reduce the wellbeing of the citizens. The report identified altogether 20 social value creation networks in the Finnish context. The most important ones from the perspective of 3D printing are: local manufacturing and transformation of industrial structures, functional materials, and new material technologies, added functional values of intelligent things, and functionalisation of spaces and structures (more about these issues on the next section). The value network of local manufacturing and transformation of industrial structures are perhaps the most relevant from the viewpoint of 3D printing.

J. Kaivo-oja et al.

6 Figure 1

Four level model for radical technology foresight

Source: Linturi et al. (2013)

The second level refers to radical technology solutions, the key aspect assessed in the framework. Radical technology solutions are divided in four categories based on their anticipated impacts on the 20 value creation networks and five other indicators. Besides high ranked technology solutions, currently low ranked technology solutions might in the future be highly important, and vice versa. This is why the continuous updating of the technology option list is a necessity. This ‘living evaluation’ approach includes also a possibility of multi-criteria decision-making for decision-makers. When the evaluations of technology options are changing, also decision-making priorities of technology policy would change, if decision-makers were using updated multi-criteria decision-making framework. This flexibility aspect of technology foresight is important, because nowadays we are said to live in a turbulent decision-making environment where the rules of hyper-competition guide most of decision-makers, at least in large corporations and internationally oriented companies. Agility and flexibility are needed in such a business and R&D environment. We know that many decision-makers are not using multi-criteria in their decision-making. For example, there are many lock-in situations in which decision-makers display too strong a focus on only some particular technology options. Level three refers to customer competences of the export areas. This is basically the level that considers the functions of Finnish export clusters. The idea was that even though the niches could be minor in the global scale, or minor even in the national economy, these niches could have importance from the export perspective. The fourth level is about the development of science. This level considers the technologies possibilities unravelled by scientific development. The report followed division by Kuusi (1997) in which the sciences are grouped into progressive sciences, sciences studying learning, and enriching sciences. There is obviously more than one industrial sector or service industry where 3D printing solutions can be utilised. We therefore expect technological convergences, e.g. such as between the GRAIN waves (Mulhall, 2002; Kaldis, 2010). Such convergences may exist, for example, 1

between robotics and informatics

2

between informatics and gene technology

3

between nanotechnology and informatics

4

between nanotechnology and robotics

New industrial platforms and radical technology foresight 5

between robotics and gene technology

6

between AI and other technology waves.

7

As current technology forecasting analyses indicate the global economy is likely to enter a new economy up-cycle about 2015 and reach advanced stage of development about 2020 (Halal, 2013). Thus, there are many potential sources for better efficiency of 3D printing. Local production model leads, of course to, decentralised production systems and to the revitalisation of regional economies (Ondrejka, 2007). On the other hand, those countries and regions that are not yet ready to adopt the net production paradigm might suffer from decreasing economic activity.

3

Futures of 3D printing: reflections from the radical technology foresight study

In this section, we highlight central aspects of the report of Linturi et al. (2013). In this context, we focus on those issues relevant for 3D printing, not on the whole report, which included the analysis of 100 technological solutions. This limitation is good to bear in mind. We hence depict different aspects of 3D printing in Finland based on the radical technology study presented above. By definition, 3D printing (or material enhancing production or additive production) traditionally refers to the production of objects by adding material, usually layer by layer. The basic method can be traced back to the early 19th century (Roth, 2016) and had its comeback in the 1980s. Today, parts of model planes and cars, hearing devices and other kinds of prostheses, musical instrument, replicas of museum artefacts, casting moulds, jewellery and tools are routinely produced. The production materials could include plastics, ceramics, composites, and metals. The prices of the devices differentiate from hundreds of Euros to million Euros and over. There has been fast growth in the industry after 2010, because of opening of some key patents. Another important factor has been open source projects. There are still technological impediments in 3D printing, but its advantages, compared to traditional manufacturing methods, is that product complexity does not add production costs, there are more geometric possibilities than in traditional manufacturing, there is no costs related to changing moulds, every piece can be unique, and it enables local forms of production thus reducing logistical costs.

3.1 3D printing as a catalyst of local manufacturing and industrial transformation The core promise of 3D printing is related to its potential in enabling local manufacturing and industrial transformation. The present situation in Finland is that manufacturing of goods manufacturing, transportation and trade comprise almost half of Finland’s GDP. The broken down costs are composed of, among others, following items: the design of products, manufacturing costs, storage costs, importation of raw materials, distribution, marketing, as well as the related management and training of business operations. Manufacturing is currently mainly based on economies of scale, in which the costs of product design are combined with the costs of manufacturing equipment and production costs of large series.

8

J. Kaivo-oja et al.

However, in the future the development of robotics could bring novel flexible elements to productions systems. For example, robotised product lines could produce unique set of products and production processes could be distributed. In 3D printing, production models could be downloaded from the web and, in its most extreme form, people could print the functional products right at home or in shopping points. If this is the case, the mas-production model of industrial goods would be replaced, stage by stage, by varied decentralised production models, in which the products are made individually and closer to end-users. New added value will emerge from individuality, from positive local employment effects and from energy and material efficiency improvements and from better product and service designs and architectures. Local production of energy is also linked to local production models in the future. The optimisation of energy use will be possible on the basis of availability and costs. Also self-generated energy can be used in local 3D printing units. Quick prototyping and manufacturing is expected to have impacts in several industrial branches: the medical and health sector, product manufacturing, construction industries, food industry, and trade and logistics. The 3D printing is technologically quite feasible already. It is already possible to produce moulds, small plastic objects, jewellery, prosthetics and medical instruments, and many other technical tools for different production systems. Even making of ceramic objects and large structures is developing rapidly, as well as production of electronics, biological and biocompatible materials for medical purposes. However, in the radical technology study it is evaluated that there could significant socio-economic impediments in the transition period from mass manufacturing to local production. This is because the operators that would benefit most by the utilisation 3D printing are relatively fragmented, and are working with traditional business models. In the field of quick production and local manufacturing there are no real legal obstacles, but especially product liability issues should be taken into serious consideration. Thus, local adaptability is one key issue of 3D printing. Probably physical access to new 3D printing technologies, motivation to use these 3D technologies and the skills of 3D production technologies are important variables, when we consider local adaptability challenges.

3.2 3D printing and new material technologies The second social value creation network that is likely to significantly affected by 3D printing is new material technologies. There are many promising prospects for new material technologies in Finland. New breakthrough materials could be related to novel surface technologies, lightweight structures, building materials that would be fit for quick production methods, like 3D printing, and materials that have significantly enhanced structural qualities compared to the present materials. New materials could lead to significant savings in labour and material costs in building industry as well as in machinery industry due to machines that contain less metal. 3D printing could also have significant effects in multiple manufacturing industries. For example, it has the potential to enable the production of materials in new ways, by combining nanotechnology, biotechnology, and chemistry or by producing functional by manipulating bacteria. 3D printing enables also a printing of entire buildings. Researchers have already developed concrete imitating materials from nano-cellulose, and other cellulose fibres that have enough rigidity, but can also be casted as thin layers without moulds. This technology enables the production of structural building elements, or even then entire


9

buildings with robotic 3D printers. The complexity of building structures does not create extra-costs. This means that, if desired, all the big furniture, curvilinear walls, routes, tubing, and even electric wires, could be printed in one take. In the future, it could even be possible to go beyond this: 3D printing could develop into a form of material spraying. This would enable the production of combinations of different materials, and making of new kinds of molecular compounds layer by layer according to a production plan. Currently, the research is, for example, focused on production of meta-materials through 3D printers that could make objects invisible. Also, it could be possible to produce organic tissue like materials by combining lipids and water that is, spraying water into lipids in very small drops. This living tissue imitating material could be amended with printed electronics to mimic nervous routes. There is also evidence that different kinds of medical materials have been printed. As a matter of fact, one could also perceive DNA printer as 3D printer even though the result is string-like. A further step is also emerging in sight: one calls 4D printing the kinds of objects that change shape as planned during the printing phase or immediately after it (Ge et al., 2013; Pei, 2014; Tibbits, 2014). However, there are important problems in the transition period towards using new material technologies. For example, new materials are not compatible with present manufacturing processes, and the utilisation might require vast systemic changes in the industrial logic. Also, the traditional manufacturing industry is ill-prepared for the emergence of new production methods and this will cause significant inertia slowing down the industrial transformation. Those players who understand the rules of new 3D industrial game are likely to be the winners.

3.3 Other emerging solution areas for 3D printing and 3D technologies 3.3.1 Biorobots The development of biology and nanotechnology has enabled the development of targetoriented robots that could move inside organisms or that are based on using living cells and organs. The movement of these biorobots could be coordinated by computers or by some other coordination function. They could also be remote controlled, for example, through nano-sized electrical circuits.

3.3.2 3D printing of organs 3D printing of organs refers to the printing of cells, made from stem cells or otherwise, according to a tissue structure or a living organ. The printing process has already developed in a stage where it is possible to keep the cells living during the printing process. The printing process will continuously become easier to realise, for example, through the development stem cell related technologies. In research labs there have been successes, for example, in printing of blood veins, a functional kidney and liver for lab mouse.

3.3.3 Sprayable textiles and fabrics A traditional way to make ready-to-wear clothes is the following: the textiles are made by knitting, cutting and sewing, and then customers fits the ready-made products and buys them. Another way is to get individual measures and make tailor-made clothes. 3D

10

J. Kaivo-oja et al.

printing could enable a third way. Textiles are composed of fabrics, and development of fabrics has enabled them to be sprayed. The textiles could, in principle, be sprayed on a dummy or directly on the person who will use the clothes. Most practical from the process perspective would be to print a dummy of one’s own body and the clothes would be sprayed on this. The sprayable textiles and fabrics could also have other uses in bandaging materials and coating materials of different equipment.

3.3.4 Emerging enabling technologies for 3D printing Different kinds of technologies that enable 3D printing solutions are also emerging. The first of these is a digital mirror. Digital mirror combines 3D camera, or some other 3D measuring device, with a large visual display unit. Digital mirror illustrates an object in front of, usually a human being, and shows its mirror image, that could be processed or not, on a screen. These devices are currently used in some shops, in which the device can take the measures of a customer and show the customer in new clothes or with new glasses. Digital mirror enables virtual testing of tailorable or stored gear, which enables even small shops to have vast virtual assortments. The second technological opportunity consists of different visual figure identification technologies. The possibilities of virtual figure identification will become more massive when algorithms and data processing will advance. This will open space for different kinds of identification technologies, such as identification of biometrics, register plates, landscapes, objects, and forms of molecules. Cheap pockets cameras and phone would be enough to identify human faces and gestures. The bigger the amount of 3D information in big open data clouds, the easier it is to identify objects, materials, and people. The identification technologies are important features that advance robotics and enhanced reality solutions. The third technology is the easy 3D modelling of objects. Several affordable tools and devices are under development, which enable 3D modelling of objects, humans, and materials. Traditionally these devices have been based in engineering on laser scanning or in medicine on ultra-sound, X-rays, or magnetic resonance imaging. Both devices and associated software have been very high-priced and their usage has commonly required specific competences. When 3D visualisation of objects, 3D printing, 3D games and 3D movies are becoming more common the solutions are entering mass markets, and they are being widely utilised. In the near future it will be quite likely that satisfactory 3D images can be produced from any objects through a smart phone and cloud-based software. When technology starts to utilise terahertz waves, then the devices will be able to model also hidden features and thus reach the sufficient level for almost any kind of modelling purposes.


4

11

Other 3D printing scenarios and trend analyses

In this Section 3, we shall present some other futures oriented analyses related to the future of manufacturing and 3D printing. First we present technological foresight results, which are based on Delphi expert panels (Linstone and Turoff, 1975). TechCast Project published first public results in 1998; latest results were published in 2013 in Technological Forecasting and Social Change by Halal (2013). When we analysed the futures of manufacturing three fields of technology, require our special attention. These fields are: 1

information technology

2

manufacturing and robotics

3

medicine and biogenesis.

Figure 2 presents a visualisation of the results of the TechCast results. There are also critical fields for 3D printing. In Figure 2, informative technology is marked with narrower frames. Manufacturing and robotics are marked by bold frames. Medicine and biogenetics are marked with grey shade. Horizontal variable year indicates most likely year of maturity in that technology field. Figure 2 presents us robust futures of 3D printing r/evolution. Figure 2

Technological developments in the fields of information technology, manufacturing and robotics and medicine and biogenetics

Source: Modification of Halal’s original figure (Halal, 2013)

12

J. Kaivo-oja et al.

In the field of manufacturing and robotics we can see future road map of technology revolution. The expected and robust technology roadmap of manufacturing and robotics is the following (Halal, 2013; Figure 1): •

sensors: 2015

•

mass custom and 3D printing: 2017

•

designed materials: 2018

•

power storage: 2020

•

nano technology: 2022

•

modular homes and micro machines: 2023

•

smart robots: 2025.

We wish to emphasise that these time estimations are based on assessments of the Delphi panels. Thus, they represent median assessments of technology experts. Technological development in the fields of information technology, medicine, and biogenetics are in many ways linked to the developments in manufacturing and robotics. Inventions in information technology support many processes of manufacturing and robotics. The logic of 3D printing is also linked in many ways to the production logic of biomaterials, synthetic bio solutions and organs production. Figure 2 visualises key phenomena of the new industrial r/evolution. Now we discuss how the futures of manufacturing are analysed in the European Union. This scenario analysis gives us a very interesting benchmark to our analysis about 3D printing and new industrial development. This analysis informs us about many problems and possible biases in European industrial policy framework. In this section our analysis is based on the research report ‘The Future of Manufacturing in Europe 2015–2020 – The Challenge for Sustainability’ (Geyer et al., 2003b). The scenario analysis was based on key drivers of European manufacturing industry. Especially, the analyses of Miles et al. (2003), Roveda et al. (2004) and Cahill (2001) were mentioned in this context of industrial scenario analysis. We shall present four scenarios of this influential report and analyse the results from 3D printing perspective the results. As put in the report, the scenarios on the Future of Manufacturing in Europe 2015–2020 (FutMan) offer future images (direct reference to the original text): “about potential socio-economic developments and future technologies that are likely to shape the European manufacturing sector over the coming years. The manufacturing scenarios highlight important trends, possible trend-breaks, critical challenges and opportunities. These scenarios present four possible future visions of manufacturing in Europe in 2015–2020.” [Geyer et al., (2003b), p.7]

These scenarios were developed by the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission. In a way they inform us about current understanding of European industrial policy and its basic beliefs. In scenario analysis the question of basic beliefs is very important, because basic beliefs guide also our decision making in various situations. In Figure 3, the basic framework of the FutMan scenario analysis is visualised.

13

New industrial platforms and radical technology foresight Figure 3

The FutMan scenarios on the future of manufacturing in Europe 2015–2020

Source: Geyer et al. (2003b, p.7)

Key assumptions and features of the FutMan scenarios are reported in Table 1. Table 1

Socio-economic features of the scenarios on the future of manufacturing in Europe 2015–2020

Global governance

Global economy

Local standard

WTO enforces free competition. Global social and environmental accords watered down.

Limits to globalisation due to lack of public acceptance. Emergence of new regional protectionism.

Sustainable times

Focus Europe

Emergence of WTO governs global of global international trade. governance bodies EU set goals to promote and pursues sustainable SD without international development. backing.

EU policy integration

Low integration Low integration of EU policies. of EU policies. Reliance on market Regional interests mechanism and set policy agendas industry actions to and priorities. achieve SD.

Strong integration of SD policies between levels of government. Regulation and market incentives.

Integration of SD policies with strong role of EU. Emphasis on cost effectiveness of policies.

Consumer behaviour

Individualism and pursuit of personal utility. Highly individualised demand patterns.

Community values and global dimension are emphasised. Demand shifts from products to services.

Individualistic values dominate. Regulation correct ‘distorted preferences’ of economic actors.

Create and Tackle key societal challenges related strengthen regional and local to sustainable innovation systems. development.

Concentrate of strategically important research on SD.

Innovation policy focus

Strengthen competitiveness and innovative capabilities of industry.

Strong perception that community values and local dimension are crucial to achieve SD.

Source: Geyer et al. (2003a, p.12)

14

J. Kaivo-oja et al.

Table 1

Socio-economic features of the scenarios on the future of manufacturing in Europe 2015–2020 (continued) Global economy

Transport and energy

Liberalised, oligopolistic markets. Low energy prices. Little emphasis on renewable energy use.

Local standard

Sustainable times

Focus Europe

Regional Mixed publicLiberalised monopolies. High private markets. markets. Low energy prices. High energy prices. energy costs. Little Fragmented High investment in public investments transport renewables. in renewables. infrastructures and gridlocks.

Sustainable Strong emphasis on Policies mainly Strong emphasis on Aim to balance SD the social and pillars through development the economic pillar responses to local pressures by environmental integrated policy of SD. various interest pillars of SD assessment tools. groups. Regionally guided by Strong technology patchy picture. precautionary focus on SD. principle. Education system

Partial privatisation of public education and training system. Multitude of private schemes.

Regional Governments retain responsibility lead role in for education education. Strong coordination. emphasis to Industry involved strengthen EU in training knowledge base. schemes.

Coordination of public and private education schemes. To improve the economy’s knowledge base.

Higher education

Strong emphasis on scientific excellence along traditional scientific boundaries.

Diversity of Strong emphasis on education and interdisciplinary training schemes training, soft reflecting regional skills and diversity and problem solving legacy. capabilities.

Strong emphasis on scientific excellence, cross-cutting traditional boundaries of disciplines.

Labour market

Little coordination Regional initiatives Coordination of Labour market and of labour market to balance labour labour market and migration policies and migration supply and integration policies. coordinated by policies. Widening demand. Large Emphasis on EU. Increase of spread of regional labour cost tackling labour labour mobility. labour costs. differences. marker imbalances.

Social security

Social security is Regional Harmonisation of increasing left to differences prevail. social security individual’s choice Social security system at EU level. becomes part of Social security and responsibility. compensation remains in the scheme. public sector.

Mixed public and privatised social security system with a compulsory system.

Source: Geyer et al. (2003a, p.12)

Thus, there are four alternative scenarios for the European Union. FutMan scenarios (see Geyer et al., 2003a, 2003b) refer to rich descriptions of plausible future states based on a set of key factors. If we want to link 3D printing to this scenario context, the Local Standard scenario is the best fit to this framework. Other manufacturing scenarios are not so closely linked to 3D printing approach, which is based more or less on local production setting and regional mini factories.


15

These FutMan scenarios reveal that there are some economic and political tensions between 3D printing developments and sustainable development strategy of the EU. In the European context, it seems to be quite difficult to develop effective SD policies, which are based on local and regional approaches. In the EU there is more confidence is on global governance mechanisms. In this report there is not much emphasis on new flexible manufacturing strategy of the European Union, although its time horizon is year 2020. This implies that there are urgent needs to update scenario analyses. Also global political setting has changed since 2003 and this, of course, changes the future map of European industrial policy. The role of BRICSA countries in global industrial development may have big impacts on the European industrial partnerships and policy choices. The analytical and strategic conclusion of the local standard scenario was the following [Geyer et al., (2003b), p.58]: “In this scenario the experts assumed the decentralisation of manufacturing operations in the motor vehicle industry. Local utility will drive consumer behaviour towards car use and mobility. There will be no large scale investments in transport infrastructures at trans-regional level and the hydrogen economy is rather unlikely to emerge in this scenario. Technology development is likely to concentrate on increasing efficiency to compensate for higher fuel prices. Industry will also focus on technologies to improve the maintenance, repair, and remanufacture of vehicles. On local levels isolated innovative solutions to transport problems might occur. The IPR problems remain unsolved. Some components production will still depend on large scale plants. However, there will be a strong restructuring and decentralisation of assembly and disassembly which implies major changes in the organisational structure for assemblers. Full lifetime control of vehicles and product liability will be part of selling vehicles because of the high degree of awareness of citizens. In general, this might lead to simpler and more harmonised vehicles design to allow for reconfiguration and local assembly. Modular design approaches will be developed to meet different demands at local levels. Local authorities become more and more powerful on issues related to environment regulation. The industry has to be able to adapt to the local social demand patterns. Vigilant consumer groups could place irrational constraints on production in this scenario and hamper investment decisions of the manufacturing industry. On local levels, however, novel innovative product-services for the green mass market might emerge and grow significantly. Car sharing and carpooling could become dominant patterns of vehicle use on local levels. The product innovation in the motor vehicle sector is likely to concentrate on intelligent socialize able vehicles; process innovation might focus on localised solutions.”

When we read this strategic conclusion text we can identify that there may be problems of IPRs in the 3D printing, and at least some IPR problems remain unsolved. The FutMan scenario analysis indicates that probably 3D printing depend still partly on large-scale plants. Here it is good to remember that the analysis was limited to year 2020. The FutMan scenario analysis clearly implies that there will be major changes in the organisational structure for assemblers. The role of local environmental authorities may also increase if manufacturing is localised, because new forms of material use are not riskless. It is good to remember that FutMan scenarios were presented in 2003 and obviously there is need to update these scenarios, but they reveal many relevant aspects of European industrialisation. According to the FutMan report, one plausible tendency of future

16

J. Kaivo-oja et al.

manufacturing can be so called multi-local society. Multi-local society will have the following characters: 1

less long distance freight transport

2

reshaped industry

3

franchise production

4

mini plants

5

IPR challenges and problems

6

decentralised power generation

7

decentralised jobs and labour markets

8

different labour market policy [Geyer et al., (2003b), p.55; Table 4].

The conclusion to be drawn from the analysis of the scenarios is: Whether sustainable manufacturing will become a reality seems to be hardly a question of technological opportunities alone. New technology, socioeconomic factors, and the policy framework will jointly determine the dynamics of change. The scenarios indicate that progress towards sustainability will depend on the successful alignment of technological, organisational, and societal factors that are required for ‘system changes’ towards sustainability. The scenarios suggest that the main obstacles to achieve progress towards sustainable manufacturing seem to be primarily located in the political and market arena, rather than being caused by a lack of technological opportunities. Thus, this conclusion is not including any suggestions towards local production strategies and 3D printing. Generally interpreting this conclusion, we can note that there is need to analyse more sustainability of 3D printing. It would be good find functioning strategic links between two industrial scenarios of ‘sustainable times’ and ‘local standard’.

5

Summary

The purpose of this article was to capture challenges that will or could arise if 3D printing technologies are implemented in the specific national context of Finland. Technological foresight studies imply many considerable changes in industrial production systems and supply chain networks in the future. These are critical driving forces of 3D printing market. Most of them are linked to business intelligence and competitiveness analyses. Before year 2025 many new technological breakthroughs relevant for 3D printing and industrial revolution have happened. We have breakthroughs of sensors (2015), mass customisation and 3D printing (2017), novel designed materials (2018), power storage (2020), nanotechnology (2022), modular homes and micro machines (2023), and smart robots (2025) (Halal, 2013, Figure 1). As a conclusion, we suggest that the big question marks in the context of Finnish science, technology and innovation policy, when it comes to 3D printing are:

New industrial platforms and radical technology foresight 1

current starting situation and existing competence and skill gaps

2

uncertainties of existing efficiency potential

3

feasibility of 3D technologies

4

transition management model and associated path

5

legal constraints

6

risk and threats associated with 3D printing systems and technologies.

17

Other uncertainties of 3-D printing identified in international context of technological forecasts and associated scientific discussions were: 1

the availability of different materials

2

sustainable use of materials

3

adoption and diffusion rate of new 3D printed products

4

IPR questions of 3D printed products.

Thus, it is not very easy to build up a roadmap of market development in the field 3D printing because of these risks and uncertainties. Obviously there will be many obstacles, open windows, and promising business opportunities. Obviously there are many other questions linked to market dynamics of 3D printing and especially to the future prices of 3D printing mini factories. The FutMan scenario analyses (Geyer et al., 2003a, 2003b) provide an interesting opportunity to benchmark 3D printing issue in the European industrial policy context. We noted that ‘local standard’ scenario is one of the promising industrial scenarios from the 3D printing perspective. Other scenario paths lead us to continue and implement (more or less) old European industrial development paradigm. If policy-makers like to provide favourable pre-conditions for 3D printing and mini-industries in Europe they must reconsider the relevance and contents of current industrial policies in Europe. The FutMan scenario analysis [Geyer et al., (2003b), pp.55–56] revealed that one plausible tendency of manufacturing can be so called multi-local society. Multi-local society will have the following characters: 1

less long distance freight transport

2

reshaped industry

3

franchise production

4

mini plants

5

IPR challenges and problems

6

decentralised power generation

7

decentralised jobs and labour markets

8

different labour market policy.

18

J. Kaivo-oja et al.

We expect that this kind of societal and technical changes many things, especially 1

the organisations of labour force

2

logistical networks

3

value networks.

References Alpern, P. (2010) ‘Beam me up, Scotty’, Industry Week, Vol. 259, No. 2, pp.46–47. Baxter, D., Roy, R. and Gao, J. (2009) ‘Managing knowledge within the manufacturing enterprise: an overview’, International Journal of Manufacturing Technology and Management, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp.183–209. Berman, B. (2012) ‘3-D printing: the new industrial revolution’, Business Horizons, Vol. 55, No. 2, pp.155–162. Bronowski, J. (1972) ‘Technology and culture in evolution’, The American Scholar, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp.197–211. Bronowski, J. (1977) A Sense of the Future: Essays in Natural Philosophy, Massachusetts Inst. of Technology Pr., Oxford, UK. Cahill, E. (2001) ‘Breaking the mould: European manufacturing in the knowledge economy’, Foresight, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp.297–308. Castells, M. (1996) Rise of the Network Society, Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge. Castells, M. (2004) The Power of Identity, the Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture, Vol. 2, 2nd ed., Null, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK. Easley, D. and Kleinberg, J. (2012) Networks, Crowds, and Markets: Reasoning about a Highly Connected World, Cambridge University Press, New York, USA. Ferreira, J.C., Alves, N.M. and Bartolo, P.J. (2004) ‘Rapid manufacturing of medical prostheses’, International Journal of Manufacturing Technology and Management, Vol. 6, No. 6, pp.567–583. Ge, Q., Qi, H.J. and Dunn, M.L. (2013) ‘Active materials by four-dimension printing’, Applied Physics Letters, Vol. 103, No. 13, p.131901. Geyer, A., Scapolo, F., Boden, M., Döry, T. and Ducatel, K. (2003a) The Future of Manufacturing in Europe 2015-2020: The Challenge for Sustainability; Scenario Report (Summary), Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Sevilla. Geyer, A., Scapolo, F., Boden, M., Döry, T. and Ducatel, K. (2003b) The Future of Manufacturing in Europe 2015–2020: The Challenge for Sustainability, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Sevilla. Halal, W.E. (2013) ‘Forecasting the technology revolution: results and learnings from the TechCast project’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 80, No. 8, pp.1635–1643. Kaivo-oja, J., Virtanen, P., Jalonen, H. and Stenvall, J. (2015) ‘The effects of the internet of things and big data to organizations and their knowledge management practices’, Knowledge Management in Organizations, Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, Vol. 224, Springer International Publishing, pp.495–513. Kaldis, B. (2010) ‘Converging technologies’, in Guston, D.H. (Ed.): Encyclopedia of Nanoscience and Society, Thousand Oaks, Sage. Koskinen, J. (2014) ‘Modular product design for dynamic capabilities of manufacturing organisations: a case study’, International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, Vol. 8, No. 6, pp.671–683. Kuusi, O. (1997) ‘Toista kertaa tulevaisuuden olennaisuuksia hakemassa’, Futura, Vol. 16, No. 4, p.4.


19

Linstone, H.A. and Turoff, M. (1975) The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications [online] http://is.njit.edu/pubs/delphibook/ (accessed 27 October 2015). Linturi, R., Kuusi, O. and Ahlqvist, T. (2013) ‘Suomen sata uutta mahdollisuutta: Radikaalit teknologiset ratkaisut’, Suomen eduskunnan tulevaisuusvaliokunnan julkaisu, Vol. 13, No. 6, pp.5–190, Helsinki, Finland. Linturi, R., Kuusi, O. and Ahlqvist, T. (2014) 100 Opportunities for Finland and the World: Radical Technology Inquirer (RTI) for Anticipation/evaluation of Technological Breakthroughs, Updated English edition translated and edited by Kuusi, O. and Vasamo, A-L., Publication of the Committee for the Future, Parliament of Finland 11/2014, Helsinki, Finland. Mann, M. (2013) The Sources of Social Power: Volume 4, Globalizations, 1945–2011, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Miles, I., Arc, M.W. and Flanagan, K. (2003) ‘The future of manufacturing in Europe 2015–2020’, EUROPE, 2015, 2020. Moshfegh, R. and Ottosson, P. (2004) ‘Hybrid prototyping’, International Journal of Manufacturing Technology and Management, Vol. 6, No. 6, pp.523–533. Mulhall, D. (2002) Our Molecular Future: How Nanotechnology, Robotics, Genetics and Artificial Intelligence will Transform Our World, Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY. Ondrejka, C. (2007) ‘Collapsing geography (second life, innovation, and the future of national power)’, Innovations, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp.27–54. Pei, E. (2014) ‘4D printing – revolution or fad?’, Assembly Automation, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp.123–127. Peng, Q. and Yu, C. (2007) ‘A visualised manufacturing information system for mass customisation’, International Journal of Manufacturing Technology and Management, Vol. 11, Nos. 3–4, pp.278–295. Rayna, T. and Striukova, L. (2014) ‘The impact of 3D printing technologies on business model innovation’, in Benghozi, P.J., Krob, D., Lonjon, A. and Panetto, H. (Eds.): Digital Enterprise Design & Management, pp.119–132, Springer International Publishing, Berlin. Rayna, T. and Striukova, L. (2015) ‘Open Innovation 2.0: is co-creation the ultimate challenge?’, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 69, No. 1, pp.38–53. Rayna, T., Striukova, L. and Darlington, J. (2015) ‘Co-creation and user innovation: the role of online 3D printing platforms’, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 22 August, DOI 10.1016/j.jengtecman.2015.07.002 [online] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0923474815000296 (accessed 27 October 2015). Rifkin, J. (2000) The Age of Access, Penguin Harmondsworth, Harmondsworth. Rifkin, J. (2013) The European Dream: How Europe’s Vision of the Future is Quietly Eclipsing the American Dream, John Wiley & Sons, New York. Rifkin, J. and Kruger, E. (1996) The End of Work, Putnam, New York. Rifkin, J., First, S.C.E. and Last, B. (1998) The Biotech Century, Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam, New York. Roth, S. (2009) ‘New for whom? Initial images from the social dimension of innovation’, International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp.231–252. Roth, S. (2010) ‘The diaspora as a nation’s capital: crowdsourcing strategies for the Caucasus’, International Journal of Transitions and Innovation Systems, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.44–58. Roth, S. (2015) ‘Serious gamification on the redesign of a popular paradox’, Games and Culture, 16 April 2015, DOI 10.1177/1555412015581478 [online] http://gac.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/04/16/1555412015581478.abstract (accessed 27 October 2015). Roth, S. (2016) ‘The cash is in the medium, not in the machine: toward the golden moments of 3D printing’, International Journal of Manufacturing Technology and Management, in this issue.

20

J. Kaivo-oja et al.

Roth, S., Kaivo-oja, J. and Hirschmann, T. (2013) ‘Smart regions: two cases of crowdsourcing for regional development’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp.272–285. Roth, S., Schneckenberg, D. and Tsai, C.-W. (2015) ‘The Ludic drive as innovation driver: introduction to the gamification of innovation’, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp.300–306. Roveda, C., Vercesi, P. and Lindblom, J. (2004) Case Sector Report: Basic Industrial Chemicals, European Commission’s Futman Project ‘The Future of Manufacturing in Europe 2015–2020’: The Challenge for Sustainability [online] http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/ industrial_technologies/articles/article_410_en.html. Fondazione Rosselli (accessed 27 October 2015). Tibbits, S. (2014) ‘4D printing: multi-material shape change’, Architectural Design, Vol. 84, No. 1, pp.116–121. Toffler, A. (1990) Future Shock, Bantam Books, New York. Toffler, A., Longul, W. and Forbes, H. (1981) The Third Wave, Bantam Books, New York. Westerlund, L. and Kaivo-oja, J. (2012) ‘Digital evolution – from information society to ubiquitous society’, Service Design: On the Evolution of Design Expertise, Series A, Research Reports, Part, Vol. 16, pp.137–153, Lahti University of Applied Sciences, Viljandi, Estonia. Westerlund, L. and Kaivo-oja, J. (2015) The Futures of Digital Evolution – Crossing the Ubicom, Finland Futures Resarch Centre, Turku School of Economics, Turku.